Huntington Beach Joins the Fight for California Children
Some thought it was all over when California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1955 on July 15. That’s the new law that prohibits local school boards from implementing policies to notify parents before socially transitioning their children.
In fact, it was only the beginning.
As we reported earlier, within a week of the governor’s signature the Chino Valley Unified School District filed a countersuit against the state claiming that the new law violates the constitutionally protected fundamental right of parents to direct the education and care of their children.
Now, the city of Huntington Beach has joined the fray as well. On September 3, the city passed a new ordinance that directly opposes the controversial law.
The city ordinance prohibits educators at any city facility, including schools, libraries, or recreational facilities, from withholding information from parents relative to their child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
The ordinance also authorizes City Attorney Michael Gates to challenge AB 1955 in court on behalf of the city and its citizens.
Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, who proposed the ordinance, is quoted at GVWire saying, “The issue of a child’s gender is personal, private, and should be discussed between the parent and the child only—not dictated by the State.”
To our knowledge, Huntington Beach is the first locality to pass an ordinance they knew in advance would be against the law in California. Their willingness to do so suggests rough times ahead for the constitutionally defective law.
Historically, the Supreme Court has recognized in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause a fundamental liberty interest of parents in directing the upbringing, education, and care of their minor children. AB 1955 would rob parents of this right by keeping them in the dark about crucial mental health care decisions being made by and for their children.
The Court held in Troxel v. Granville that “The liberty interest at issue in this case—the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” 530 U.S. 57 (2000) at 65.
And in Parham v. J.R, they declared, “The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More importantly, it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interest of their children.” 442 U.S. 584 (1979) at 602.
The Chino Valley Unified School District, the City of Huntington Beach, and other localities in California recognize these truths and are working to reestablish them in law, even as the State of California is bent on taking them away.
Parents, not government actors, are the best suited to make these major, life-shaping decisions with and for their children, including the proper treatment needed for mental or physical health. And parents cannot play this vital, protective role, if government agents are keeping those parents in the dark on something as major as the child’s very identity.
The Parental Rights Foundation is not a party to any of these lawsuits at this time. But we are watching the situation closely and preparing to jump in at any time to make sure the courts are clearly versed on the extensive Supreme Court precedent only briefly touched on above.
If you pray, pray for California. And thank you for standing with us to protect children by empowering parents in California and wherever the parent-child relationship is under attack.